Grayslake High School Gets High End Synthetic Turf
- on 05.23.07
- D-127, General
- 4 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
There is a story and an editorial in the Lakeland Journal this week that the residents of Grayslake High School District 127 should be aware of. The story is on the competitive “not so competive” bidding proccess for the Synthetic turf to be put in at Grayslake Central. [Emphasis mine]
|
GRAYSLAKE – District 127 will pay nearly $150,000 more than the lowest bid for a synthetic field turf at Grayslake Central High School. In fact, the school board – following the recommendation of administrators – accepted the highest of five bids for the project. Michael Zelek, associate superintendent for business services at District 127, said only FieldTurf Inc., based in Montreal, had offered what the school wanted. That company’s base bid came in at more than $840,000. “The district had its sights set on a specific field,” Zelek said. “The board determined that FieldTurf did the type of work and had experience doing the work.” The following, according to District 127 documents obtained by the Lake County Journals, are the rejected base bids: • Team REIL Inc., $655,979 • Mondo, $693,428 • A-Turf, $768,500 • General Sports Venue, $768,700. |
and from the editorial:
|
When School District 127 agreed to hire FieldTurf Inc. to install a synthetic field turf at Grayslake Central High School, it defeated the intent of the state’s competitive bidding law. It appears, however, that the specifications were written to ensure the contract went to FieldTurf Inc., which is considered the Cadillac of field turf providers. When the specs effectively eliminate all but one potential bidder … well, there is no incentive for that one company to submit a competitive bid. Some of the specs defied explanation. One required the successful bidder to have installed an equivalent project of at least 70,000 square feet of turf. Why 70,000 rather than, say, 65,000? Who knows. But we do know only FieldTurf complied; one competitor had installed only 66,800 square feet, making that company unqualified to do the work. Another spec required the base sand to be “51-60 percent of infill by weight.†Why 51-60? Who knows. Again, only FieldTurf complied with the highly detailed specification. The odd thing, though, was that FieldTurf’s bid was so embarrassingly high, school officials made a counter-offer. And FieldTurf agreed to cut its price by more than $35,000 – still nearly $37,000 above the next highest bidder, and $150,000 higher than the lowest bid. |
The editorial ends with the following question and answer. This is an extravagant expense and one that appears to be games played with the bidding process.
|
But did Grayslake Central need the best turf that money could buy? Apparently so. |
I also have been working on this story. I will have more details and some of the documents linked in the next several days as I have time.
I totally agree with you. A few years ago, they claimed to be
out of money and sports/music would need to be cut. The tax
increase we turned down should have told them to loook within
their budget to fix their problems. By some accounting miracle, the
$2,500,000 was found. Now they have a $7,000,000 budget overage.
How about sending the extra back to the tax payers or send it
into the teacher retirement fund that is bankrupting this state?
Didn’t we just spend $1,500,000 to put in a sprinkler system
into that field? Can’t little Susie and Johnny play on grass?
All this teaches is finacial insanity.
Our school district is considering fieldturf for replacing the
present field, if you guys had made the switch can you please
give me some insight as to the end results, injuries, etc?
Any information will be greatly appreciated
Our school district is considering fieldturf for replacing the
present field, if you guys had made the switch can you please
give me some insight as to the end results, injuries, etc?
Any information will be greatly appreciated
[...] This is not the first time school boards skirt the law and use no-bid contracts. The most egregious and costly are the use of consortiums, many run by former school superintendents, like the Illinois Energy Consortium. Grayslake District 46 did this with the purchase of over priced cleaning supplies from a referendum supporter. Yet, others throw out bids to make sure they get the vendor they want even if it costs ten of thousands more. [...]